Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    36,947
    vCash
    1000

    Why doesn't wOBA include IBB?

    It's neither added in the calculation nor taken out in the denominator.

    Kemp had 12 times as many IBBs as Braun. If you subtract IBBs from the denominator and re-calc wOBA you get:
    Braun .4341
    Kemp .4340

    Why would wOBA not include IBB?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    14,057
    vCash
    1500
    Because it shows no skill perhaps?

    Would you trust a blind scout? Of course you wouldn't but that's what you do when you simply go by stats
    Splifftone, OptiskeptSF and Ciaban have a lot in common

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    36,947
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by RTL View Post
    Because it shows no skill perhaps?
    Neither does reaching on an error, but it's still calculated

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    14,057
    vCash
    1500
    No its not.

    Would you trust a blind scout? Of course you wouldn't but that's what you do when you simply go by stats
    Splifftone, OptiskeptSF and Ciaban have a lot in common

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    36,947
    vCash
    1000
    yes it is, it's worth .92.

    And drawing an IBB is still value, it should be included in woba.


    It certainly shouldn't be included in PA, because currently all IBB count as outs.

    That's certainly not right.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    14,057
    vCash
    1500
    Reaching on an error is included? Wow! That's extremely dumb! Drawing IBB doesn't show any skill or real value as I see it. #8 hitters get intentionally walked all the time just to get to the pitcher. Doesn't say much about the player. I agree it shouldn't be included and am astonished reaching on an error counts. Very flawed.

    Would you trust a blind scout? Of course you wouldn't but that's what you do when you simply go by stats
    Splifftone, OptiskeptSF and Ciaban have a lot in common

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    School in Hoboken, home in Rockland County, NY
    Posts
    54,870
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by RTL View Post
    Because it shows no skill perhaps?
    Completely disagree with this. It usually takes a skilled player to be IBB'd. It's ridiculous to say that Barry Bonds getting IBB'd 120 times in a season doesn't show skill, it shows that he has enough skill that pitchers don't want to face him 120 times.


    Not counting them also leads to the obvious problem that they aren't counted, yet it is counted when pitchers clearly pitch around a guy.

    Quote Originally Posted by RTL View Post
    Reaching on an error is included? Wow! That's extremely dumb! Drawing IBB doesn't show any skill or real value as I see it. #8 hitters get intentionally walked all the time just to get to the pitcher. Doesn't say much about the player. I agree it shouldn't be included and am astonished reaching on an error counts. Very flawed.
    Just picked the first three teams that come to mind for me as a Mets fan, the Mets, Phillies, and Braves had a combined 33 IBB's in their #8 spot, or 11 per team on average. At most, there were 5 for players (Thole and Ruiz), which is to be expected given that the #8 hitter isn't the same every game for most teams. I would think leaving out the guys who get walked because they're great hitters (19 players had 10 or more IBB's, all were in the top 63 hitters according to wOBA except for Iciro who most definitely wasn't a #8 hitter in the NL, these were almost all fantastic hitters) would be a bigger source of error than the revolving door of #8 hitters getting rewarded a bit.
    Last edited by jetsfan28; 11-25-2011 at 02:27 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    14,057
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by jetsfan28 View Post
    Completely disagree with this. It usually takes a skilled player to be IBB'd. It's ridiculous to say that Barry Bonds getting IBB'd 120 times in a season doesn't show skill, it shows that he has enough skill that pitchers don't want to face him 120 times.
    Sure Bonds was skilled but what skill was he showing when he was getting intentionally walked? Watching a catcher stick out his hand and see four tosses go by? Players get intentionally walked for all kinds of reason but it doesn't show any type of skill set. Bonds' wOBA is still ridiculous without the IBB.

    Would you trust a blind scout? Of course you wouldn't but that's what you do when you simply go by stats
    Splifftone, OptiskeptSF and Ciaban have a lot in common

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    School in Hoboken, home in Rockland County, NY
    Posts
    54,870
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by RTL View Post
    Sure Bonds was skilled but what skill was he showing when he was getting intentionally walked? Watching a catcher stick out his hand and see four tosses go by? Players get intentionally walked for all kinds of reason but it doesn't show any type of skill set. Bonds' wOBA is still ridiculous without the IBB.
    If wOBA is supposed to measure skill, it takes a large amount of skill to be good enough that the other team would choose to walk you rather than face you. Being good enough that teams will want to walk you is skill.

    And on top of that, if wOBA is supposed to measure production, than obviously getting walked is producing.

    Just go break down the impact of adding wOBA to players' stats. I would think there would be a much larger impact, as a whole, for improving the wOBA of good hitters who got walked because they're good (which is a good thing, their skill is leading to them getting on base, and they are producing), than for bad hitters who were walked out of circumstance.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    14,057
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by jetsfan28 View Post
    If wOBA is supposed to measure skill, it takes a large amount of skill to be good enough that the other team would choose to walk you rather than face you. Being good enough that teams will want to walk you is skill.

    And on top of that, if wOBA is supposed to measure production, than obviously getting walked is producing.

    Just go break down the impact of adding wOBA to players' stats. I would think there would be a much larger impact, as a whole, for improving the wOBA of good hitters who got walked because they're good (which is a good thing, their skill is leading to them getting on base, and they are producing), than for bad hitters who were walked out of circumstance.
    Just because a player is IBB doesn't necessarily mean they are good. It takes no skill whatsoever to watch a pitcher throw four pitches in the other batter's box. It's something a hitter cannot possibly control.

    Would you trust a blind scout? Of course you wouldn't but that's what you do when you simply go by stats
    Splifftone, OptiskeptSF and Ciaban have a lot in common

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    36,947
    vCash
    1000
    Either way, it shouldn't be looking like an out by counting as a plate appearance. I'm not sure if fangraphs adjusted for this in their calculations (I'll check later).

    I think it shows skill. The fact that you are good enough to not be pitched to. We certainly shouldn't be taking away value for an IBB

    As for the reaching on an error, it's not worth very much, but it's in there do it doesn't count as a direct out. Reaching on an error has some value to the team. You have to put the ball in play or reach on a walk to have value. It isn't worth much, but it should hold some value

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    36,947
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by RTL View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jetsfan28 View Post
    If wOBA is supposed to measure skill, it takes a large amount of skill to be good enough that the other team would choose to walk you rather than face you. Being good enough that teams will want to walk you is skill.

    And on top of that, if wOBA is supposed to measure production, than obviously getting walked is producing.

    Just go break down the impact of adding wOBA to players' stats. I would think there would be a much larger impact, as a whole, for improving the wOBA of good hitters who got walked because they're good (which is a good thing, their skill is leading to them getting on base, and they are producing), than for bad hitters who were walked out of circumstance.
    Just because a player is IBB doesn't necessarily mean they are good. It takes no skill whatsoever to watch a pitcher throw four pitches in the other batter's box. It's something a hitter cannot possibly control.
    They wouldn't be IBB if the pitcher an opposing manager felt they could get them out with any level of confidence. While number 8 hitters in the nl do get walked intentionally some, they wouldn't if the 9 hitter wasn't worse than them. There is a value there, and it should be adjusted to find its true value.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    36,947
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by RTL View Post
    Reaching on an error is included? Wow!
    Why did you tell me that it's not if you didn't know?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    15,187
    vCash
    1500
    IBB isn't included in wOBA calculation because the increase in expected runs for someone drawing an intentional walk is fairly low. I don't remember what it is off hand, but I think I remember Dave Cameron saying it's something pretty ridiculous like +.1 runs. I could be wrong on the exact value, but I definitely remember the explanation part is correct.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Waterloo
    Posts
    9,076
    vCash
    1500
    Admittedly, this is my first time in the sabermetrics forum, but how does an argument about whether IBBs depend on how skilled a player is go on this long without anyone bringing up numbers?

    From 2009-2011, I took all the seasons where a (qualified) batter had at least 1 IBB, and looked at the correlation to their OPS, PA, HR, and SLG. There were 414 such seasons, and for IBB:OPS, I got a correlation coefficient of 0.54. For IBB:HR it was 0.44, IBB:PA was 0.23 and IBB:SLG was 0.49. So, there seems a bit of a linear relation between IBB and batter talent (or..."scariness")...but it's not that strong. And interestngly, a pretty weak relationship between IBB and PA.

    Anywho, the graphs are here.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •